I'm 5 years out and will be applying with a 2 page resume. I did a few intro calls with consultants and they said that 2 pages are ok if you actually have done 2 pages worth of work and time (which I know I have, and I'd bet you have as well).

Hey, I'm in the same boat. I'm in a study group now that meets via zoom Sunday EST evenings. I'm aiming to finish 7sage CC mid/end June and focus exclusively on PTs thereafter. Aiming for a 175 so I'm studying very intensely. If that seems like a good timeline/plan for you message me. Otherwise I can just send you the groupme :)

If I am understanding your reasoning correctly, that is correct. AC A most logically completes the author's argument because their point is simply to cast doubt on the proponents' argument, not to put forward their own argument about the environmental impact of EVs.

I think my response to @Lsat175's post at @lexxx745's summary lower down on this thread would also be worth a read if this is still something you're looking for feedback on.

It's good that you got the answer right, but I wanted to respond because the way you got there isn't actually correct. Abatement actually means "reduction" not complete cessation/stoppage of something. To use your example, an abatement of the -50 damage/year could be -30, or 0,or anything less than -50.

That's what makes AC E a really tricky trap when comparing it to A. Those who chose E likely summarized the proponents argument "when the issues with the EV battery are solved the environmental degradation from car emissions will be mitigated" which could lead to assuming the author thinks that there will not actually be a reduction in environmental degradation. AC A is right because the author is bringing up other factor that cause environmental degradation not considered by the EV proponents' argument. We do not know if the author thinks this will or will not reduce environmental harm, and that is why AC E (which assumes the author thinks the damage will either remain the same or increase) is incorrect.

@buonamim583 said:

Hey peeps, I started a discord for whoever is interested :)

https://discord.gg/yDJcD4

The discord link says invalid, could you reshare?

Hi same here, I got a 154 diagnostic and 170 BR and I'm also only a few units into the CC! please add me to whatever list you've got going:

malotragaudet [at] gmail.com

Definitely got that impression. If you caught the madness that was the comments/Q&A section I'm the one that asked for the deans to comment on distinguishing between applicants who intentionally leave their jobs for law schools vs. those who are doing it (or were laid off) as a plan to "ride out" a possible recession. I made a quick decision to wait an extra year and give myself more time to get my life in order and dedicate myself to the LSAT before applying... definitely feel like I screwed myself.

I'm a splitter with a 3.2x gpa, 5 years out of school, will have an MS completed (part time) upon applying, and am currently hovering in the low 160s (BRs 170s). T14 goal for public interest law (so also looking wherever I can get the most $...). Hearing that my fears that schools' endowments are taking a hit in the markets and will be less likely to give scholarships was very upsetting. (This fear is based on '08/'09 ug admissions data I learned about while I was an undergad.) Dean Guzman made a good point advising admitted students to still do 1L even if it's online because they will be better positioned in the job market... but I'm not sure how many people will think about that over their learning preferences re: IRL vs. online courses.

Also down! I'm considering trying to take an LSAT Flex test because it's way shorter, but before that announcement was made Oct was my original plan